would the postal service run more efficiently w/o unions?

[WalterMitty]

obviously.

[Lief 🗽]

WM, your hatred of union but love of poors doesn't make any sense.

[WalterMitty]

WM, your hatred of union but love of poors doesn't make any sense.

unions exploit poors with false promises.

[Lief 🗽]

WM, your hatred of union but love of poors doesn't make any sense.

unions exploit poors with false promises.

No, they prevent poors from being completely powerless.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

cue TNF in 3...2...

[opebo]

WM, your hatred of union but love of poors doesn't make any sense.

unions exploit poors with false promises.

Complete garbage.

And besides, the goal of an organization should not be to 'run more efficiently' - precisely the point of government and government controlled corporations is to provide sinecures.  'Running efficiently' is just a euphemism for exploitation, Walter Mitty.  Why on earth should anyone outside the 1% care if something 'runs efficiently'?

[barfbag]

I find unions counterproductive. It's one of the main reasons I vote Republican. In the postal service it leads to snail mail. Today we have more efficient means of transportation and communication such as e-mail, texting, and social media. They need to get with the times. Our government should provide a postal service, but an efficient and reliable one. One thing I've found about government unions anyways is that congress makes most of the decisions. What if we let postal unions make their own decisions and run themselves?

[Goldwater]

The only way to make the post office run efficiently is getting rid of it.

[LastVoter]

who cares

[TNF]

Unions increase productivity, so of course they're better for business. Also Mitty, it's time to come out of the closet as a Republican already.

[Indy Texas]

Not necessarily more efficiently (in the sense of better service or getting your mail to you any faster), but their labor costs would be lower because they'd probably get rid of defined-benefit pensions and move to stingier health coverage.

[© tweed]

why does the postal service have to make money?

[© tweed]

Unions increase productivity, so of course they're better for business.

it's better not to even wade into this territory, it's their territory.

[barfbag]

obviously.

You oppose postal unions?

[Leftbehind]

The postal service is there to deliver a service, I couldn't give a f**k if removing unions would make it more "efficient" (a term which usually means offers poorer conditions for its workers).

[TNF]

Unions increase productivity, so of course they're better for business.

it's better not to even wade into this territory, it's their territory.

Yeah you're right.

[Dr. Cynic]

I get my mail every day. Is that not efficient?

[Donerail]

In another one of the threads we were discussing how much higher the quality of service was at Costco, because they pay their employees decently and offer good benefits. Similarly here. If 'efficiency' means running things cheaply, then yeah, the postal service would run cheaper if there weren't any unions. If it means efficient delivery and quality service, then no, it wouldn't.

[Indy Texas]

In another one of the threads we were discussing how much higher the quality of service was at Costco, because they pay their employees decently and offer good benefits. Similarly here. If 'efficiency' means running things cheaply, then yeah, the postal service would run cheaper if there weren't any unions. If it means efficient delivery and quality service, then no, it wouldn't.

Except we can only have one postal service. Not everyone cares enough about customer service to shop at Costco. The people who simply want to pay as little as absolutely possible will go to Sam's Club or Wal-Mart. They have that option. It would be different if we had to decide as a country between having Costco and having Sam's Club but couldn't have both.

[tpfkaw]

In another one of the threads we were discussing how much higher the quality of service was at Costco, because they pay their employees decently and offer good benefits. Similarly here. If 'efficiency' means running things cheaply, then yeah, the postal service would run cheaper if there weren't any unions. If it means efficient delivery and quality service, then no, it wouldn't.

The Postal Service.  "Good customer service."

[Lief 🗽]

The customer service at the postal service is honestly no worse than any private company's, in my experience, and often better. My mom receives and sends a lot of mail as part of her business, and they're always very friendly and helpful to her.

[Napoleon]

The customer service at the postal service is honestly no worse than any private company's, in my experience, and often better. My mom receives and sends a lot of mail as part of her business, and they're always very friendly and helpful to her.

Does friendly make up for slow and useless?

[traininthedistance]

USPS service has always seemed fine to me.  Yes, it can be slow if you have one person behind the counter and a long line of people sending packages, and better weekend hours would be nice, but that's an argument for increased staffing levels and/or self-serve kiosks for simple things.  (Preferably both if possible.)

The real problem with the USPS, of course, is that the internet has just killed demand for first-class mail, since people email and pay bills online and read news sites rather then getting letters and bills and magazines.  But, of course, they still need to make the same appointed rounds- what was supposed to be a profitable monopoly that subsidizes package and rural delivery has now become a millstone.  Arguing about the effects of unions here is mostly an irrelevant sidetrack: they didn't create this mess, but neither can they really fix it.

[Lief 🗽]

The customer service at the postal service is honestly no worse than any private company's, in my experience, and often better. My mom receives and sends a lot of mail as part of her business, and they're always very friendly and helpful to her.

Does friendly make up for slow and useless?

Again, not any slower or more useless than privately-owned places. I've waited in line for 45 minutes in an un-air conditioned Time Warner store just to return a modem before. This isn't something unique to the post office.

[tpfkaw]

If USPS had such great customer service, how come absolutely nobody uses them in the one area they don't have a legal monopoly on (package delivery), even though they're usually cheaper?